alpal78

Why? Was it our decision he was sacked? Even now I maintain my position that Hughton was average and the decision to sack him could/would have been right had we got in somene like Jol or MON. I'm not pissed at Hughton's sacking per se but the fact that we replaced him with someone seemingly inferior and the way Ashley treats the club/fans with such scorn by employing his casino buddy.

Yup let's see whether Pardew can really produce attacking football but to be fair you should also mention some of dour shitty results we had at home. I like Hughton but he's no Arsene Wenger either.

One of the best post I've read on the forum

I actually burst out laughing when I read this it's so pathetic. You may as well have put up a big sign saying 'wind up, please reply as many times as possible here'. Dickhead. No need for the aggression just because others have a different opinion from you. Grow up

To be fair, and not having a go, but your normal support is not giving any (very much) money to Ashley anyway. By and large what I think people should do is virtually what you're doing already. Nobody has to pretend the club doesn't exist, I would just say we should make sure we don't do anything which is likely to harm the club like giving Ashley your money. Apart from that, going to the ground, showing your support, following on the radio, getting autographs of players, its all good. Would encourage someone to buy us, too, so it's brilliant. I've said elsewhere, one of the reasons I'm concerned is that I think there's a really good chance that Ashley won't be gone any day soon. If other people who do give Ashley their money carry on as normal, I think he's gonna have no reason he cares about to go and possibly a lot of reasons to stay. Stay long enough to renew Pardew's contract. You signed up to support the club through highs and lows, that means you don't abandon us for Chelsea, not that you have to help the man who is killing the club - it's literally the opposite. Like the nuance you explained

Thought the casino remark was interesting, shows the players are savvy to the situation. Not surprised with ours, but generally with footballers you find they really are ignorant of reports of how stuff like this happens. Trust they aren't swallowing this three day appointment process bullshit. I doubt that part to be honest. I'm sure some players are unhappy (and they should be) but doubt any of our players are aware or have the courage to question the casino connection. Sounds to me like exaggerated shit stirring by journalist, just like the use of the word 'revolt'.

With the odds being low, how much did you put on to get that sort of profit??

I was in denial but now that the appointment is official, I find it absolutely disgusting!

What? Just asking

ffs man, IT IS PARDEW is there confirmed news from the club?

No Dave you're the one who is blinded by anger. Nobody has said that Hughton's sacking was a good idea, there were some (myself included) that had a bit more reservations of his ability as a manager, but we all agree that what happened to Hughton was unacceptable. The only way that things could have been mitigated/bettered was if we got someone in like Jol or MON. Now I feel as bad as any other that we are not getting those names in and that we will be replacing Hughton with someone seemingly inferior or at best like for like (i.e. average), but what Crumpy is saying (and I agree) is that instead of creating a hostile environment, let's give Pardew a chance. If as expected that we still end up in the bottom 3 by January, then that's the time to get the knives out and give him hell. A hostile environment gets us nothing and certainly won't affect Ashley, it might make our job of surviving more difficult though.

wouldnt be like talksport to lie though to get idiots phoning and texting inin now would it. Strange that no other media outlet are so sure like talksport are trying to nake out. Just going by Ashleys previous, no one had a clue about appointments of KK, JFK or shearer. But Golfmag knows and, tbf, he's not been wrong about this situation so far. Alas, I fear he's telling the truth. He'll be the first Toon manager who I despise with an absolute passion. WHY? someone please enlighten me on the pardew hartred Nobody knows for sure, it's just that some people have cast him as the hated one, then decide to believe that he has already been appointed and are driving themselves into a frenzy. My advice would be to just stay calm and enjoy the circus from the sidelines. That's what I'm doing.

... I'm not optimistic about Jol, but this is plain silly. How in the world would a journalist know the exact contract offer that Ashley made? He had a spy camera in Ashley's office? More tabloid nonsense that some over here are chosing to believe.

No offense meant, but that is really a dumb statement! All I hope is we sing his name for the full 90 minutes he's there. I don't care if it gets him and his team going. The man needs to be shown the love he deserves. Irks me that he didn't get a chance to say goodbye to the team ffs, he needs something. That's perfectly understandable. But welcoming him back and chanting his name is different from wanting his new team to tonk us.

No offense meant, but that is really a dumb statement!

If we go by Campbell's quotes, the players got the news after and not before the game. Nobody knows for sure what happened with the West Brom game, but not only were the performance bad (both tactically and individual application), crucially gone were the spirit and fight that was shown against Chelsea.

The sort of over reaction is this thread is ridiculous. Wanting someone to have a heart attack, not supporting the new manager without knowing who it is....etc. Yes Hughton was a nice guy and we owe him for getting us out of the championship, but I'll wait to see who we appoint before creating drama. The decision to sack was perhaps premature, in an ideal world Chris would have been given till Jan to turn things around. But with the matches coming up, the players looking disinterested, my prediction is that he would not have succeeded anyway.

So who would you play instead if Nolan is still out?

any idea why Barton is not even on the subs bench?

Platini is rumoured to be one of the 2 votes which went to Holland and then moved to Russia once we went out. That's the bit that I still can't rationalize. How did Holland/Belgium get 4 votes in the 1st round and then lost 2 votes in the second round when the competitors were still the same sans England. Why would England's elimination reduce the Holland/Belgium vote in the second round?

That's right keep on convincing yourself that the BBC program will end of corruption in FIFA and those criticizing it are just turning a blind eye to corruption. Have a look at BBC's statement So what did they seek to achieve by screening it before the vote? Were they really expecting that somehow FIFA would suspend voting because of BBC's allegation? Don't be naive man. There would not have been an material difference (in terms of stopping corruption) had BBC screened the show after the vote. The only thing achieved by screening before the vote was to damage England's chances and get some cheap sensationalism for BBC, nothing else. I happen to believe that exposing the corrupt is not only worthwhile but essential, especially for an institution such as the BBC. I doubt it will end corruption but does that make the show any less newsworthy. Screening the show after the vote would've been pathetic, a total cop out. I don't disagree with your first sentence. What you have yet to demonstrate though is how is screening before the vote better/more effective in terms of whatever you want to achieve vis-a-vis corruption. The same program after we lose the bid would look to the rest of the world like sour grapes. FIFA would say that if we thought there was corruption why didn't we bring it up before the vote so they could do something about it, we're obviously just bitter about losing and use that to dismiss the allegations and sweep it under the carpet. They'll still dismiss the allegations and try to sweep it under the carpet, but at least now the dismissal of it can be seen as the self-serving attempt to hang onto their own cushy numbers it is without allowing them to use the sore loser excuse. You made a fair point. But then the only value you get by screening pre vote is people's perception of FIFA since we both agree that either way FIFA aint gonna do squat about corruption. Now balance that marginal value against the huge economic loss that England will suffer if the show has a detrimental affect on the voting.

That's right keep on convincing yourself that the BBC program will end of corruption in FIFA and those criticizing it are just turning a blind eye to corruption. Have a look at BBC's statement So what did they seek to achieve by screening it before the vote? Were they really expecting that somehow FIFA would suspend voting because of BBC's allegation? Don't be naive man. There would not have been an material difference (in terms of stopping corruption) had BBC screened the show after the vote. The only thing achieved by screening before the vote was to damage England's chances and get some cheap sensationalism for BBC, nothing else. I happen to believe that exposing the corrupt is not only worthwhile but essential, especially for an institution such as the BBC. I doubt it will end corruption but does that make the show any less newsworthy. Screening the show after the vote would've been pathetic, a total cop out. I don't disagree with your first sentence. What you have yet to demonstrate though is how is screening before the vote better/more effective in terms of whatever you want to achieve vis-a-vis corruption.

That's right keep on convincing yourself that the BBC program will end of corruption in FIFA and those criticizing it are just turning a blind eye to corruption. Have a look at BBC's statement So what did they seek to achieve by screening it before the vote? Were they really expecting that somehow FIFA would suspend voting because of BBC's allegation? Don't be naive man. There would not have been an material difference (in terms of stopping corruption) had BBC screened the show after the vote. The only thing achieved by screening before the vote was to damage England's chances and get some cheap sensationalism for BBC, nothing else. Do you think the people implicated in the program didn't know about the allegations already and would have voted for England if only the program had been shown later? There's a case for saying it should have been shown as soon as possible, but not later. If anything this will improve England's chances. You're the corrupt FIFA official. Do you: Sulk about the program and vote against England just because of it, knowing it will only increase suspicion that you're self-serving and corrupt and encourage more journalists to come after you. Vote for England even if you fancied a nice Summer holiday on the Costa del Sol hoping it will show just how impartial and incorruptible you are and get those nasty people who want to stop you getting rich from backhanders off your back for a bit. You reasoning only stands if there was a way to unearth the motivation behind every vote. Otherwise the said FIFA official who is pissed off at BBC would happily vote against England and justify the vote on so many other plausible grounds.

That's right keep on convincing yourself that the BBC program will end of corruption in FIFA and those criticizing it are just turning a blind eye to corruption. Have a look at BBC's statement So what did they seek to achieve by screening it before the vote? Were they really expecting that somehow FIFA would suspend voting because of BBC's allegation? Don't be naive man. There would not have been an material difference (in terms of stopping corruption) had BBC screened the show after the vote. The only thing achieved by screening before the vote was to damage England's chances and get some cheap sensationalism for BBC, nothing else.